ON THE CONSUB STANTIA LITY OF THE SON. 1 Legatione. [199] 2 λόγος 3 τοῦ. 152 Testimonies from Athenagoras, on the relation unto Whom all things are subject, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; a statement which entirely overthrows the inventions of the Arians also, and of all other anti-trinitarians. For the rest, those passages of Justin, which some have imagined to be inconsistent with these, we shall afterwards consider in our own fourth book, on the subordination of the Son to the Father. I fear however that I may there omit one passage objected by Sandius, that, I mean, in which Justin is said to have taught, that the Son of God is "a created angel!" Let the reader, however, be assured that such a passage is no where found in the writings of Justin; but that Sandius, shamelessly, as his way is, has falsely attributed it to the most holy martyr. I now pass on from Justin to other fathers. 9. Athenagoras, in his Apology for the Christians, most explicitly acknowledges the community of nature and essence which exists between the Father and the Son; for, with the view of explaining to the heathen philosophers, who that Son of God is, whom the Christians worship, he says: "But the Son of God is the Word' of the Father, in idea and in operation. For by Him3 and through Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being One; and, the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, by the unity and power of the Spirit: the Son of God is the mind and Word of God.” What Arian ever spoke thus of the Son of God? He says, that the Father and the Son are one; and consensu. that not only by an agreement of will3, as the Arians contended; but by a mutual epixópnois, " circumincessione," as the schoolmen express it, so that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. He says, that the Son is the very Mind and Word of God the Father; in what sense this is to be understood we shall explain afterwards; meanwhile it is certain that it cannot in any sense be reconciled with the Arian doctrine. Nor must we overlook the fact that Athenagoras, in treating of the work of creation, which in the Scriptures λόγος. 5 72 d Athenagoras flourished about the year 177. Cave.-BOWYER. • ἀλλ ̓ ἔστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ. πρὸς αὐτοῦ γὰρ καὶ δι ̓ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο, ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ· ὄν τος δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐν πατρὶ, καὶ πατρὸς ἐν υἱῷ, ἑνότητι καὶ δυνάμει πνεύματος, νοῦς [The words are so understood by Bp. Bull, ii. 3, 14.] g Book III. 5. § 4-6. BOOK II. CHAP. IV. § 8, 9. GORAS. 1 unum sint. 2 virtute. of the Word to the Father, explained and commented on. 153 is attributed to the Son of God, teaches, that the universe was created, not only di' avтoû, "through" the Son, which the Arians were willing to allow, (understanding, of course, ATHENA'through Him' to mean, through Him as an instrument, which of itself has no power to do any thing,) but also πρòs avтoû1, “by Him," that is, as, conjoined with the Father, the primary efficient cause; and that with the addition of [200] this reason, that the Father and the Son are one', in essence, that is to say, and nature, and consequently in power2 and operation; which is diametrically opposed to the Arian heresy. Presently after, however, in the same passage, Athenagoras distinctly denies, that the Son in the beginning came forth from the Father to create all things "as made," (ws yevóμevov) or created by God, [a denial] which aims a deadly blow3 3 jugulum at the Arian blasphemy. We shall hereafter bring forward ipsum pethe passage entire, in our third book. A few words after he makes a full confession of the consubstantial' Trinity, in these words; "Who then would not think it strange, to hear us called atheists, who speak of God the Father and God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, shewing both Their power in unity and Their distinction in order?" Parallel to this is the exposition of the view of Christians touching the most holy Trinity, which he advances elsewhere in the same book, conceived in the following terms: "We speak of God, and the Son His Word, and the Holy Ghost, being one indeed évoúμeva. in power, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit: in that the Spiritum Son is the Mind, Word, Wisdom, of the Father, and the Bull. Spirit an effluence', as light from fire." Where he very 7 àmópputa. plainly enough infers that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God, from this, that there is one only foun h "I dislike this reading very much. For it is not (as the learned Bull thought) equivalent to un' avrov: nor can any instance be brought forward in which all things are said to have been created πρὸς τοῦ λόγου, instead of, what is very often used, ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου. Ιf, however, we read πpòs avтòv, a very good meaning will come out, that is to say, that all things were created 'after' the Word, that is, after the pattern delineated in the Word; 'omnia secundum Verbum, sive secundum exemplar in Verbo descriptum creata esse.'" Edit. Benedict.-B.] 1 Chap. v. 2. * τίς οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπορήσαι, λέγοντας Θεὸν πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν Θεὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει δύναμιν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει διαίρεσιν, ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένους.-Ρ. 11. [p. 287.] 1 Θεὸν φαμὲν, καὶ υἱὸν τὸν λόγον αὐτ τοῦ, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἑνούμενα μὲν κατὰ δύναμιν, τὸν πατέρα, τὸν υἱὸν, τὸ πνευμα ὅτι νοῦς, λόγος, σοφία υἱὸς τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ ἀπόρροια, ὡς φῶς ἀπὸ πυρὸς, τὸ πνεῦμα.-Ρ. 27. [§ 24. p. 302.] tit. Ts duogvσίου τριά opi δος. 5 6 Sanctum. ἀπόρροια. CONSUB STANTIA LITY OF THE SON. essentia. 201 2 ex ipso 4 + longissime. 154 The Word and Spirit distinguished from the Angels. μεις, 3 ON THE tain of Deity, namely the Father, from whose essence1 the Son and the Holy Ghost are derived, and that in such wise, as that the Son is the Xóyos, [Word or Wisdom,] from ever1 ex cujus lasting existing and springing out of the very mind of the Father, (for that this was Athenagoras' meaning we shall clearly prove hereafter,) and that the Holy Ghost also flows forth and emanates from God the Father Himself', (through Deo Patre. the Son, that is to say, as we have shewn above,) as light proceeds from fire. In passing you may observe, how completely Athenagoras acknowledged the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost, equally with that of the Son. This divine 3 auéows. philosopher, however, immediately proceeds in the same passage to mention the angels, whom he styles ἑτέρας δυνάμeis, "powers, other and different from" the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; inasmuch as they are very far1 removed from that uncreated nature in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have their subsistence. On this account he soon after expressly says, that the angels were "made" by God (yevoμévovs). As for those passages which Petavius, Sandius, and others have produced out of Athenagoras as favourable to Arianism, we shall afterwards (in the third book on the co-eternity of the Son) shew, that they have been alleged by them to no purpose. And indeed, respecting the other Fathers of the first three centuries, I once for all inform my reader, that whatever passages alleged out of them by sophists in support of Arianism, I have passed over in this book, these I have carefully weighed elsewhere, either in that third book, or in the fourth, on the subordination of the Son, and, if I mistake not, have given a clear account of them. And thus much concerning Athenagoras. 10. We have already" heard TATIAN declaring, that the Son is begotten of God the Father, οὐ κατ ̓ ἀποκοπὴν, “ not by an abscission," ȧλλà катà μеpioμòv, "but by a participaἀλλὰ κατὰ μερισμὸν, 5 [or" di- tion," or communication of the Father's essence, just as one fire is lighted from another; now this, as we at the time p. 140.] shewed, clearly shews the consubstantiality of the Son. [202] THEOPHILUS of Antioch° in his books addressed to Autoly vision," see above, m Chapter v. throughout. Theophilus was promoted to the " See the fourth section of this chap- Bishopric of Antioch, circa an. 168. ter, [p. 140.] Cave.-BowYER. Theophilus' distinct testimony of the Trinity. 1.55 BOOK II. CHAP. IV. § 9, 10. LUS. Bull. cus, which alone out of his numerous writings are extant at this day, has some passages which remarkably confirm the catholic doctrine. Thus in the second book; "The Word THEOPHIbeing God, and born of God,” (Θεὸς ὤν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ 1 utpote, TEQUкÓS) in which words he infers that the Son is God, "as being." from the circumstance that He is born of God Himself; that is, according to the rule which I have elsewhere' given from Irenæus; "Whatsoever is begotten of God, is God,” (tò èk Θεοῦ γεννηθὲν Θεός ἐστι.) Theophilus had shortly before informed us, that by the Son of God we must doubtless understand "the Word, which exists perpetually laid up in the heart of God,” (τὸν λόγον, τὸν ὄντα διαπαντὸς ἐνδιάθετον èv kaρdía Oεoû,) manifestly implying, that the Son has an eternal subsistence in the very essence of God the Father. That Theophilus also recognised the entire most Holy Trinity, is clear from those words of his in which he teaches, that the three days, which preceded the creation of the sun and the moon, were types "of the Trinity, that is, of God, and of His Word, and of His Wisdom,” (τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ. It is true that Petavius, who seems to have read the writings of the primitive fathers for the very purpose of finding or making blemishes2 2 and errors in them, endeavours from these very words of Theophilus to construct a charge against that excellent father. His words are these": "Theophilus' explanation of the Trinity is widely different from what the Christian confession of It allows; seeing that he calls those three days, which, at the beginning of the world, preceded the production of the [203] sun and of the moon, a figure of the Trinity, that is, of God, and of His Word, and of His Wisdom.' He makes no mention there of the Spirit, Whom he appears to have confounded with the Word; for we have before shewn that he called the same Being the Word and Spirit of God, and truly [His] Wisdom." Now to this I reply, that, as well on account of Their common nature, as of Their common deri nævos. 73 ON THE CONSUB STANTIA THE SON. 1 ab eadem τητος. 156 The Names not the Persons of Son and Spirit confused. vation from one and the same fountain of Godhead', the ancients used to make the names also of the second and the LITY OF third Persons [of the Trinity] common. Hence, as the name Spirit of God," which more frequently marks the third ó- divine Person, is (as I have shewn already") sometimes applied by them to the second Person; so the name Wisdom, though it is used for the most part to denote the second Person, is occasionally employed to designate the third. And, besides Theophilus, we shall elsewhere2 have to observe that this was done also by Irenæus and Origen; and yet these holy fathers must not on that account be regarded as confounding the second and the third Persons of the Trinity; forasmuch as it is most manifest from their writings, and that from those very passages in which they interchange the names of either [Person,] that they did themselves account the Son and the Holy Ghost to be Persons really distinct from each other. And with respect to Theophilus, every one must see that his words are of themselves sufficient for their own vindication? For how it is to be supposed that he confounded the Holy Ghost, the third Person of the Godhead, with the Word, when he expressly confesses Tv тpiáda, the Trinity? What? Can the Father and the Son, without the Spirit, or a third Person distinct from both, constitute a Trinity? It is clear, therefore, that Theophilus confused the names only, not the Persons, of the Son and the Holy Ghost. But concerning Theophilus of Antioch, this is enough at present. LUCIAN. 11. And here I entreat the reader to allow me to turn aside [204] for a moment from the remains of the holy fathers to the writings of a heathen. The author of the dialogue, ascribed to Lucian, which is entitled Philopatris, toward the conclusion by way of ridicule introduces a Christian catechising a heathen, (whom, on that account, he somewhere in the Dialogue expressly calls a catechumen,) and amongst other subjects explaining to him the mystery of the most Holy Trinity. Upon the heathen asking the Christian," By whom then shall I swear?" Triephon, who sustains the part of the Christian, replies", "By the God who reigns on high, y [i. 2. 5. p. 48.] z See c. v. § 7. of this book, and iv. 3-11. [Vol. iii. p. 596. ed. Hemster hus.] » Υψιμέδοντα Θεὸν, μέγαν, ἄμβροτον, οὐρανίωνα, υἱὸν πατρὸς, πνεῦμα ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευό |